It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.
That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.
As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.
It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.
Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.
Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.
Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.
So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.
Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?
You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?
There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.
We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"
originally posted by: Nochzwei
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.
That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.
As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.
It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.
Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.
Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.
Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.
So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.
Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?
You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?
There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.
I'm quite certain gravitational microlensing is due to time compression and not due to bending of space
We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"
Probe B results have not confirmed either of these 2 effects that you mention, according to many scientists.
en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.
That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.
As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.
It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.
Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.
Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.
Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.
So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.
Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?
You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?
There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.
I'm quite certain gravitational microlensing is due to time compression and not due to bending of space
We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"
Probe B results have not confirmed either of these 2 effects that you mention, according to many scientists.
Really? Who?
originally posted by: Nochzwei
en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do subscribe to gravity, though not in bending of space. You may want to chk my thread on bending or unbending of space.
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good post, though I personally don't subscribe to GR in any way, shape or form.
That's interesting. Why not? GR is pretty well established. It's kinda like saying you don't subscribe to gravity at this point.
As far as I am aware nasa's bpp program was terminated years ago.
It kinda still exists but it was broken up into smaller teams experimenting on various things.
Perhaps the most notable is the work being done by Harold "Sonny" White to test Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive theory using the White-Juday Interferometer.
Marc Millis, the head of the BPP program continues work on advanced concepts at NASA Glenn with the his Tau Zero company and the 100 Year Starship organization.
Others are still testing other advanced concepts as part of NASA's advanced propulsion research.
So yes, BPP is dead, long live BPP!
As Alcuberie assumes space is bent, its bound end up in failure, though i'll chk this marc mills link with his starship program.
Do you know what gravitational microlensing is?
You do know we have almost countless examples of space being bent/warped right?
There's a whole branch of astronomy which wouldn't exist if it weren't for gravitational microlensing.
I'm quite certain gravitational microlensing is due to time compression and not due to bending of space
We also have tested and confirmed the Geodetic Effect and Frame Dragging which Einstein Predicted. Google "NASA" and Gravity Probe B"
Probe B results have not confirmed either of these 2 effects that you mention, according to many scientists.
Really? Who?
coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com...
The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.[30] The findings were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.;[7] the prospects for further experimental measurement of frame-dragging after GP-B were commented on in the journal Europhysics Letters.[31]
Besides on a side note e = mc2 completely refutes GR
The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
To be sure, the Gravity Probe B experiment is a fantastic achievement that offers spectacular evidence in support of two distinct predictions of the general theory of relativity.
...
However, your headline is problematic for anyone with a knowledge of the scientific method or an interest in the philosophy of science.
Really ?
originally posted by: [post=18809923]JadeStar
Besides on a side note e = mc2 completely refutes GR
Now you're just talking nonsense.
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: rigel4
I have always believed in life out there.. it's
(statistical certainty)
Just so happens that it is also a mathematical certainty!
You are wrong on both counts im afraid, it is neither a statistical or mathematical certainty.
Before you start quoting the drake equation parrot fashion you might want to read and understand it correctly.
originally posted by: rigel4
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: rigel4
I have always believed in life out there.. it's
(statistical certainty)
Just so happens that it is also a mathematical certainty!
You are wrong on both counts im afraid, it is neither a statistical or mathematical certainty.
Before you start quoting the drake equation parrot fashion you might want to read and understand it correctly.
I didn't quote the Drake equation ... fool
originally posted by: Asynchrony
The photos of Mars structures shown in another thread are enough to make a believer out of me.